Jump to content

Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Diverse characters

I have just read that Black Panther’s Success ‘Emboldened’ Marvel Studios to Tell Diverse Stories and The MCU Will Soon Introduce Two LGBTQ Characters, Feige Promises. Is it good enough for inclusion, or should we wait until they actually do it? Also, is "diverse" an advisable word to use in wikipedia's voice, or is it just a politically-correct term? Cambalachero (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

There is already at least one LGBTQ character in the MCU. Virginia Gardner's character Karolina Dean in Runaways is lesbian.[1]
The MCU is full of LGBTQ characters, but their lack of representation on the film side could be noteworthy. Discussion on where such information could go will be required. As for the term "diverse", I don't know what the official stance on this across Wikipedia is but I am personally against using it in any way that does not make sense based on the actual definition of the word (for example, the Black Panther cast is actually not very diverse at all since most of the actors are of the same race, so we have avoided that term at the Black Panther article in favour of more accurate descriptions). - adamstom97 (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't say the MCU is "full" of LGBTQ characters (without viewer interpretations). Gonnym (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
The media usually focus in the films and ignore TV, so yes, if this issue advances in the films it will be noteworthy, regardless of the TV series. Take for example the all-black cast of Black Panther. Why did it had so much praise, if Luke Cage already had one? Because one is a film and the other a TV series. It may be unfair, but it's the way it is. Cambalachero (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't doubt the media focus on film more than they do TV - it sells more and it boosts the reviewer's status as well. To add to that, this is Netflix which is even on a lower-reviewer scale than TV shows are (Netflix episodes don't usually even get separate news articles). I don't disagree that the Black Panther cast did a great job, but ignoring the TV side of the MCU just because you seem to belittle it, ignores the fact that its inherently part of the MCU. Also, a quick google search provided me with [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] - so yes, people were talking about the black themes of Luke Cage. --Gonnym (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Obviously "full" was an exaggeration. Regardless, it is clear that a lot of people do ignore the TV shows, and have been concerned with the lack of representation in the films. If we were being consistent with ourselves then the place for information like this would be here, but I am wondering whether a little bit of rejigging is required since we are ending up with a lot of film-specific criticism at this article but trying to keep TV-specific criticism at the list of TV shows; perhaps we need to move some of the film-specific stuff to the list of films? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
We can simply describe the concerns about the lack of diversity in the films, and the projects to fix it; and then point that the TV series already featured some of this stuff. Besides, if we have some source that points the obvious fact, we may also point that the lack of diversity was already a problem in the source material (the lead characters, Stark, Rogers, Thor, Banner, Dr. Strange, Spider-Man, Scott Lang, etc. were all white males in the comics to begin with, most diverse characters other than Black Panther are just secondary characters or legacy characters of a white male hero) Cambalachero (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Avengers 4 Retitling

It looks like Avengers 4 has been retitled to Avengers: Fallen Heroes here, making it multiple times this has happened. I suggest changing it back and locking down the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.77.111.16 (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

That is from vandalism at the list of films page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the Avengers 4 cinematographer potentially leaked the title being Avengers: End Game, which lines up with everything Kevin Feige stated about the project, and was quickly taken down, meaning that this certainly could've mean an actual leak. At this point, I think it would be safe to say it is Avengers: End Game. [8] Bringmethearchitects (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Still just a rumor. Also, the Russos debunked that title months ago [9]. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
We should wait for official confirmation. While it may have been legit and the latest iteration of a title they were working on, that doesn't mean it was necessarily finalized. If it was a slip of the final working title, the studio will likely confirm it in the next few days or weeks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding future release dates

Hi, I'm sorry to ask this but I was wondering if the release dates for the unknown MCU films after Avengers 4, Spider-Man 2 and Guardians 3 should be included to the list of MCU films? Temporarily listing them ("Unknown Marvel/Disney film") until Marvel/Disney reveal what the actual titles for those movies on those dates actually are? - RVDDP2501 (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

We shouldn't be adding movies to the table before there are any details or concrete plans for them. However, the dates are already listed in the future section of List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Spider-Man's Tom Holland wants Tom Hardy's Venom to join MCU

Spider-Man's Tom Holland wants Tom Hardy's Venom to join MCU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.255.217.165 (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

So? Rcarter555 (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Kevin Feige said no, and he outranks Holland. We may mention this on the "Reception" section of the Venom article (after the release, right now there is no reception to talk about), as long as it's clear that it's just an actor's wish and not an actual move in progress by the studios. Cambalachero (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2018

Under Business practices, in the 6th paragraph, Rosario Dawson's name is written as "Dawnson" in a single instance, which should be corrected. 82.166.100.172 (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done - adamstom97 (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Anybody know what's going on with the references?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Found it. It had something to do with this edit at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Gunn's firing

I don't think we should be implying in this article that Gunn's firing was the result of spontaneous resurfacing of "controversial tweets" (and especially giving out-of-context description of what was in the tweets -- Gunn was a shock-jock with a crude sense of humour, but that's not what the trolls were trying to imply when they first dug these tweets up). Our James Gunn article currently has much better coverage of this. Yes, some (early?) reliable sources (jumped the gun and?) that imply this was not the result of a targeted, politically-motivated smear campaign (itself "revenge" for Gunn's criticism of the Trump administration) can no doubt be located, but the better ones all contextualize it, and we probably should be too. It's also a near-certainty that Disney were aware of the tweets themselves, and Gunn's apology, long before July 2018 given that at the time of his initial hiring (which no doubt involved thorough screening) they were relatively recent, something that's also backed up by the best sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the Gunn article yet, but I think Draft:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 handles this better. I think the wording here was more trying to be brief since this isn't the place to be getting into all the details. I personally have also been wary of the line between what I objectively know happened (Disney was bated into doing it by the right-wing commentators, since everyone was aware of the tweets before) and what sources have been saying / not coming across as fan-ish. I have seen a few edits from users trying to use Wikipedia to support Gunn and we can't condone that. It's just a tricky situation, but suggestions to improve wording would help. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding not getting into all the details for length purposes: I agree. The problem is that we have to write something and what to write that briefly encapsulates what happens is a sticky point. I would say changing what we have here to However, in July 2018, Disney and Marvel severed ties with Gunn as following controversy surrounding several old tweets [or "old jokes"?] Gunn had made. would adequately address both length and neutrality concerns.
This wording is slightly shorter than what we have now, and mentioning "rape and pedophilia" makes this line really stand out from the rest of the article; doing so without mentioning the fact that he was making off-colour jokes (rather than, say, unironically belittling the problem of rape) gives a somewhat different impression. I also think we should probably avoid saying "resurfacing" in articles where we are not mentioning the idea that it was a targeted smear campaign, since that wording somewhat implies that it wasn't a targeted smear campaign. To be clear, I don't think there's room in this article to talk about that, and I'm not advocating for such.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd be fine with your proposed wording. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
James Gunn's name needs to be replaced with 'TBA' in the cell describing who's directing Guardians 3.

Gigantic Good Article

I don't think the Good Article designation should be that huge. 68.170.18.122 (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Somehow, the References section is kicked up where it shouldn't be and is filled with bolded red text indicating errors. What's happening? 68.170.18.122 (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

See also, References, and External links also repeat in this article for some reason. 68.170.18.122 (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It had some to do with a scripting error in this edit at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, which was transcluded here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it and the gigantic Good Article image. 68.170.18.122 (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2018

Marvel has added new films that are in development, and these needs to be added to the Post Phase Three Section of the Films table.

Film name: Eternals
Director: Chloé Zhao
Screenplay: Matthew and Ryan Firpo
Status: In Development
Source: https://io9.gizmodo.com/reports-marvels-eternals-movie-is-moving-forward-with-1829230370#_ga=2.247490116.2140730926.1537722290-790102000.1533907325


Film Name: Black Widow
Director: Cate Shortland
Status: In Development
Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/black-widow-movie-be-directed-by-cate-shortland-1126708 Mrjake2 (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done These films have not been announced or dated so they should not be added to the table. They are discussed in prose at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films in the meantime. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of {{for outline}} template

Earlier today, I added {{for outline}} to the top of the page, providing a link to the Outline (dif and old version). This edit was just reverted by @Brojam: without explanation (dif and new version). Rather than starting an edit war, I would like to see what the community thinks. Should this template be included at the top of the page? (I note that there is already a link to the outline in the "see also" section, but given how long the article is, I believe that having a link to the outline at the top, rather than towards the end, would be more useful) --DannyS712 (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

It's unnecessary since we already have the link in the navbox template at the bottom of the article and also in the "See Also" section. No need to clutter the top with this when it's already linked twice in the article. - Brojam (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Brojam: As I said above, the 2 existing links are at the bottom of the long article, which means that they may be of little use to those who don't have the time to read it. Other articles, including Motifs in the James Bond film series, Wine, Database, and Economics, have repeated links to their outlines. In fact, both wine and database use this exact template twice. Also, both those two pages and economics include links to their outlines at both the top of the article and in the see also sections, exactly as I am proposing. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. Also for the examples you mentioned, the outlines are quite different than the articles they outline and in fact very useful. Compared to the MCU outline, which is pretty much just all the tables from this article. I still don't see the point in even needing this outline article when this article is pretty much an overview/outline in itself, but that's besides the point. Since this outline is not really adding much, I don't see the point in having it at the top. If someone is really interested in seeing it as an outline, the can easily find it by clicking the "See Also" item in the menu, just like is done with the MCU Wiki book. - Brojam (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

New Warriors unlikely for 2018

New Warriors looks unlikely to debut for what is left of 2018 and the article should make this edit accordingly. 122.106.83.10 (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It has not yet been confirmed to be dropped from its' intended release. Once the year ends, it would likely be able to change, but for now, leave it how it is. 101blazertrail (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Unofficial MCUTV

With the recent release of Samuel Masters' Unofficial MCUTV drama series that he made as a non-profit fair use project reusing scenes from the Phase One films in a unique way, I thought it would be nice to include it in the Cultural Impact section of the page due to acknowledge the community's love and support for it.

Here's the website link: https://www.smasters.net/unofficialmcutv. 101blazertrail (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It's just a fan-edit -- there are lots of MCU fan-edits, for examples: https://ifdb.fanedit.org/fanedit-search/tag/franchise/marvel-cinematic-universe/ . I don't think any particular mention is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 03:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Misleading Fantastic Four info in article

Disney does NOT get the full rights to the Fantastic Four in the merger deal because Fox doesn't have them. Fox only has the right to DISTRIBUTE films based on the characters. The PRODUCTION rights belong to a German company, Constantine Film. So far there has been no word about what Disney intends to do about acquiring those rights or whether they will simply involve Constantine in the production of future FF movies. Considering the stalemate they have with Universal over the Hulk (Hulk can only be used with other characters, any solo films have to distributed by Universal), Disney might not want to have the same thing going on with FF. With all of the X-Men back at Marvel, Disney might not consider Fantastic Four a priority and also might hope that waiting might put pressure on Constantine (which has had money problems lately) to sell outright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.214.103 (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to support your claims? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
There was uncertainty about the rights in some sources when the possible Fox deal was first announced in 2017. Later sources like Disney/Fox Deal Includes the Fantastic Four After All usually say that Disney gets the rights. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Videogames section - PC is a Console now?

Why is Microsoft Windows under "Consoles" in the videogame section? Microsoft Windows is not a console in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.235.96.140 (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT - wolf 11:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

MCU character articles

I understand that it may be useful to have articles for new characters (i.e. Phil Coulson) but I am not convinced that we need to create separate articles for existing characters and I definitely do not care for their current presentation. We have had Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe) and BD2412 has recently created articles for Steve Rogers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) (which I moved back to draftspace) and Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe). They are all just overly stuffed plot summaries with other information copied and pasted from the film articles. It's basically the opposite of WP:CONTENTFORKing. Perhaps if they went into new analytical details that we could not cover in the film articles, then I might reconsider but as they stand now I don't see the point.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

All of these characters have film character arcs discussed in the literature that span multiple films, or the course of the film series, and can not be fully developed in any single film article. Their character histories are distinct from the comic book character histories, with different time frames being involved, and story lines from the comics being either compressed into much shorter time periods, with substantial elements omitted (e.g., Tony Stark's alcoholism, Thor's banishment to Earth, the whole Civil War arc), or stretched out far beyond what appears in the comics (e.g. Killian's role as the "real" Mandarin). More frequently, elements created for the films are completely different from or unrelated to anything that appears in the comics (e.g., Tony Stark being the creator of Ultron, who in turn builds the Vision, which Stark and Banner then finish). There are analytical details about all of these things in these articles, but it is a matter of course that they are worked into the overall text in such a way that they do not immediately stand out to someone who is merely comparing elements of these articles to the dozen or so films whose events they cover. There is always more that can be added, which is more likely to happen once these drafts are in article space. Consider the reader, however, who is interested in the MCU depiction of Tony Stark across the films. Would they be better off if they have to read pieces of eight or nine different articles to understand the development of a character across that number of films? bd2412 T 17:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
With some contextual editing all of this information could easily fit into existing articles. The problem is these articles have no filter. They seem to be an excuse to skirt around governing guidelines for film articles. We do not go into excessive details because they, including their plots, are non-free works. This remains the same regardless of article type (see MOS:PLOT).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I agree with your assessment Triiiple. I know Adamstom.97 was trying to create a mock-up of the Tony Stark article in their sandbox of how I think you were leaning in your thoughts Triiiple. But I do agree that at the moment, these are just copying the bits of relevant info across each of the film articles and putting them in one article. I wouldn't be opposed to articles about these characters, but they do need to be vastly different before I could fully support their existence. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I have also moved the Thor article back to the draft per the concerns raised here and until this discussion concludes so we can hopefully find a positive, correct way to move forward with these articles (if at all). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I will add, these article need to focus far more on the analysis, commentary, and reception to all of these characters, than the plots summarizing them in each film appearance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Agree 100%, and might I add they need actual critical reception, not just accolades. Speaking of accolades, if these are meant to be character articles then why do these sections include accolades that are presented to film itself and do not pertain to the actual characters or performance.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I kind of have an agree to disagree going on. The disagreement is that they are not notable on it's own. They are just being handled poorly is all is my thoughts. After all we do have multiple Arrowverse and Smallville and Gotham tv series character articles that are treated better when they are probably not even as well known. Along with a one time adapted villain. So I say just try to improve the article would be better than edit conflicting discussions. It's not that the end of the world that we have new Wikipedia articles after all. As long as there is more than the content forking going on. Jhenderson 777 18:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jhenderson777: I did a quick one-over of the proposed Thor article, and I believe the only info that has not been content forked is what's in the "Appearance and special effects", "Characterization", and "Differences from the comic books" section. Everything else is simply copied material from the respective film articles in which the character appears. So definitely not more than just forking the content, hence some of the concerns raised. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

From what I noticed is that you're right. They could at least change the info and use the same source. I will see with what I can do. I was responsible for some articles like these. See Superman (Salkind films) and Peter Parker (Spider-Man film series). I was hoping to make more but my interests change too much. So I might can do some improving when having the time. Jhenderson 777 18:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The information is, in every case, condensed and consolidated at least to some degree. The character biographies are highly condensed from the large number of film articles featuring each of these characters (compare, e.g., Michael Corleone). I'm sure more work can be done, but it would be more productive to improve these articles than to try to dispense with them. I can find no policy prohibiting their existence, so unless they fail an AfD or an MfD, they are going to end up in the encyclopedia. Whether individual members of this project want to help improve them is a personal choice. I note, by the way, that Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe) gets on average over 1,700 pages per day. This is a fairly popular page. bd2412 T 18:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I never understood the absurd reasoning of we don't need "separate articles for existing characters". The comic character is not the same as the character in a different media, let alone a character which has a rich history such as a MCU character. I'll add that that I think that this talk page is not the place to discuss "allowing" or not these articles and sending them to draft in their current form for not liking them, is not a valid reason (see WP:DRAFTIFY). If you have an issue with an article then WP:AFD it and see if you have consensus on your side. --Gonnym (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I also support having film character articles. There will be some redundancy, which is not inherently bad, because the scope can be character-centric. Aside from the so-called fictional biography (which shouldn't be too detailed), the main characters have significant coverage. I've read Assembling the Marvel Cinematic Universe: Essays on the Social, Cultural and Geopolitical Domains and Avengers Assemble!: Critical Perspectives on the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which both have a lot to say about the characters themselves. I recall thinking that even Loki would warrant his own film character article based on these reads (and other such coverage since villains tend to get directly analyzed anyway). ADDED: To clarify, I essentially endorse having BD2412's edits in the mainspace. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I am supportive of the creation of these new character articles, as long as they are well made. Unfortunately, these have not been. Copying information from the different film articles and adding a huge, un-encyclopaedic WP:COPYVIO biography section is very problematic. I have started working on the Tony Stark page to try and make it mainspace appropriate in my sandbox, but it is not at a point where I would be happy to present it as part of this discussion. Basically, I support TriiipleThreat's position at the moment, but I do encourage those editors who are working on the other articles to keep trying to improve them in the draftspace for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • @Adamstom.97:, can you point to any specific portion of any of these biographies that constitutes a copyvio? As a longtime copyright attorney, I am concerned that your understanding of that term may diverge from the actual meaning of the term. bd2412 T 21:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
It is my understanding that in articles about works such as films, TV series, and books, we give a summary of the plot for context only, and are supposed to avoid overly detailed plot regurgitation because it would violate the author's copyright. And these character biographies are dominating the pages when we need to be focusing on WP:REALWORLD content anyway. Whether they are strictly a copyright violation or not, they are objectively awful. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, under the copyright law, all of Wikipedia is considered "a work", so if these details are contained anywhere in Wikipedia, it doesn't matter from a copyright perspective whether they are in a single article, or scattered across a dozen articles. In fact, the biography sections in these articles are substantially shorter and less detailed than the plot summaries of the films from which they were drawn. On occasion, editors will add more details than I have included, which can be removed just as easily. bd2412 T 21:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The issue is that these character articles are not providing any (unique) REALWORLD information to support the plot stuff. If we are not using their works to comment on them then we should not be using them at all. That is why a Wikipedia article cannot be only a plot summary. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Adamstom.97 and TriiipleThreat, moving the article back to draft space is an act of bad faith and tantamount to deletion of a topic without consensus. If you oppose the article as it is, take it to WP:AFD. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, I had nothing to do with the move, but I will defend Triiiple in saying that moving to the draft space is absolutely not "tantamount to deletion" and is the good faith alternative to going to AFD. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:DRAFTIFY was not really followed here. --Gonnym (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

By the way, my rule of thumb in creating these articles has been that the character must have at least one tentpole film (i.e., one that is about that character as the focus of the film), and appear in a half dozen additional films. The only characters meeting this criteria so far are Tony Stark, Steve Rogers, Thor, and Hulk. Future expansion is possible, depending on the direction of the MCU. If Peter Parker, Stephen Strange, Scott Lang, and T'Challa appear in several more films (both their own sequels and other MCU films), they will eventually qualify. If the Black Widow solo film is ever made, she will also qualify. If Bucky Barnes or Sam Wilson becomes the next Captain America, and has their own Captain America film, they would qualify at that point. I haven't really thought about applying this thinking to the Guardians of the Galaxy films, but none of those characters have held up a solo film. I tend to think of Peter Quill as being the real star character of the franchise. Of course, these are just my own arbitrary benchmarks. bd2412 T 00:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Note: as a clear and well-reasoned consensus has now been established in favor of having these articles, and there is certainly a clear absence of consensus required for their removal or continued draftification, I will continue to pursue the creation of these subjects accordingly. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The bigger question is if we need content forks in the case of Tony Stark, Steve Rogers, Bruce Banner etc between the articles on them as comic characters and in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. In a case like Batman or Superman or Lois Lane we have to date determined that we can cover all the issues related to the character in one article, even though all three of those have been present in comics decades longer than anything from Marvel and Lois and Clark were in film before anything from Marvel was created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    • The scale of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is somewhat bigger than any individual superhero film series. Because characters cross over into films ostensibly starring other characters, there is a much larger information set to convey. With respect to each of these characters, there are aspects of the MCU series character that are unique to that discussion. The storylines, though drawn from the comics, are restructured, condensed or distributed over different films. Thus, each character in the film series has a storyline unique to that series, with elements unique to the MCU. There are also, of course, extensive discussions of how the actors were cast for the parts, how they and the directors went about creating the specific version of the character that is now "canon" to the films, how those characters differ from their comic book counterparts, and how they have been received as film characters by the public (which is not necessarily an audience that cares about comic books). bd2412 T 01:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Those combined comic articles you mentioned do a bad job addressing all the types of the character. The film section is a small paragraph and has almost not actual information outside of casting. Also, while I understand some editors feel that in-universe information is trivia (/sigh), most readers actually read a character's article to read a summary of major parts of its story. Those articles have none of that and having such information for a comic/television/film all in one article will cause that article to be big, messy and unreadable. --Gonnym (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Any editor is welcome to improve them. All of them now contain reliably sourced information of interest to readers that is found nowhere else in Wikipedia. bd2412 T 17:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistent Naming

Alright, now a problem with the movie pages is the casting sections. Why, well the issue is that while characters like Obadiah Stane, Natasha Romanov, Ivan Vanko, Rhodey don't get their aliases in the movies they appear in (Iron Man 1 and 2), but however characters like Pietro and Wanda Maximoff from Avengers: Age of Ultron are listed in their aliases despite the fact that they were not named in that film. I understand why Emil Blosnky is called Abomination on the Hulk movie page, but to list the other two I mentioned? Their code-names are only named in interviews and merchandise, just like the characters whose aliases are not listed. That is the problem, it has become too inconsistent and needs fixing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.160.114.107 (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

What if?

Is What if? meant to be in the MCU as it doesn't seem to be canon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.136.15 (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

What If...? is a TV show dealing exclusively with MCU what-if scenarios. It is essentially the MCU version of "What If." Obviously Peggy Carter never took the Super Soldier Serum, but that's not important. The show's canonicity is irrelevant. You mean to tell me "this is the MCU version of "What If", therefore it's not part of the MCU"? That just doesn't make any sense. If the show is dealing with the MCU, then it is by definition part of the MCU, even if its stories tell alternative histories. --Bold Clone 18:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
It is not canon to the MCU since its whole premise is to contradict MCU canon, but it is definitely connected to the franchise which is why it is mentioned in the "Outside media" section here which is for related stuff that is not canon. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
If the show is related to the MCU, then it belongs on the MCU TV show page. Simple enough. You might as well argue that the Marvel Comic “What If” isn’t actually part of the Marvel Comics Universe. That’s obviously not true, simply because the Marvel Comics “What If” ‘’are a Marvel Comic’’. Their canonicity is irrelevant. They are telling Marvel Comics stories that are not within the main timeline, but they are just as clearly part of the multi-timeline fictional “Marvel Comics Universe”. The same goes for the MCU “What If...?” It is clearly not part of the main MCU timeline, but it is just as clearly part of the multi-faceted world of the MCU. --Bold Clone 06:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, just because it's not "canon" to the current MCU timeline doesn't make it not part of the MCU, especially considering the MCU film actors are reprising their roles. What If...? should be listed with the other Disney+ series. - Brojam (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I do want to clarify something here quickly. I'm not basing my position of "Marvel's What If is part of the MCU" on the fact that Marvel Studios is producing it, or because that Kevin Feige is overseeing it, or because the MCU actors are possibly reprising their roles for the show. That would violate the "No synthesis" or "no original research rule." I'm basing off of the Marvel website press release, which says "Marvel’s What If…?," the first animated series from Marvel Studios and takes inspiration from the comic books of the same name. Each episode will explore a pivotal moment from the Marvel Cinematic Universe and turn it on its head, leading the audience into uncharted territory." Here is the press release. Hope that helps. --Bold Clone 01:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Spiderman

It has been announced that the next Spiderman movie will be the actual conclusion to Phase 3 and the Infinity Saga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:432d:8630:48e:42a2:87ff:65a9 (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2019

Change 'Spiderman: Far from home' to be part of the 'Infinity Saga', under the Feature Films section. No evidence to support this not being part of this 'Infinity Saga' can be found. Jack111295 (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Far From Home is not part of the Infinity Saga because it doesn't have anything to do with the infinity stones, as the first 22 films do, as quoted by the Marvel Studios president. Far From Home is merely ending phase three of the MCU. QueerFilmNerdtalk 22:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Correction

In the feature films section why phase four shown as phase three Kunal chauahn (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Far From Home will close out phase three, not Endgame as previously thought. QueerFilmNerdtalk 22:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Infinity Saga

Didn’t Feige himself say the first 22 films are a part of the saga? If so Screen Rant may be wrong in this case. I say we need a better source to support Spider-Man: Far From Home as part of the saga. Jhenderson 777 03:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok in my edit summary I said MCU but I meant Infinity Saga. Also I meant Feige as “he”. Many more sources are saying that endgame is the last of the Infinity Saga so I feel like we should wait on the outcome of this due to WP:Crystalball.Jhenderson 777 17:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Is The Infinity Saga really first three phases?

I don't get it, whoever edits that needs to fix his/her brain. MCU's first 22 films is indeed The Infinity Saga. Every media sources said that, even Kevin Feige recognized it, that was way before Far From Home is now as a conclusion of Phase 3. Not the first 3 phases. Repeat, Feige said "FIRST 22 FILMS" not 23. MCU fans knows that already so stop confusing readers and the fans Rams2018 (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Re-organizing the TV-Series section

Even though all the series are considered canon, the fact is, that - with the exception of the upcoming Disney+ shows - they've been pretty much ignored by the films, with the sole exception of Jarvis appearing in Endgame. Kevin Feige also said, that the Disney+ shows will actually tie into the films. There is a clear distinction between the Disney+ shows and the other ones; that distinction being, that the former are produced by Marvel Studios, while the latter ones by Marvel Television. As such I would suggest to make a distinction between those shows and organize the Television section accordingly. Other than that, it could basically stay the same. It would go something like this:

Television
Marvel Studios
Falcon & Winter Soldier
What if...?
etc.
Marvel Television
ABC
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
etc.

Any thoughts?91.15.90.46 (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The thing is if a show is within MCU canon or not. If it is, we list it in this article, if it isn't, then we don't. This "more canon than the others" is a byzantine issue that shouldn't be taken into account. Network and series is good enough, we do not need to go overdetailed with studios, network and series. Cambalachero (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I actually like the idea. It's pretty clear that there is a distinction between Marvel shows and Marvel Studio shows. Marvel Studios pull directly from the movies, while Marvel Television usually introduces new characters (with the exceptions being Phil Coulson and Peggy Carter). --Bold Clone 16:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This article already widely discusses this issue, there is no need to make the simple TV overview section more complicated as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The Infinity Saga

Why Linked source, https://www.slashfilm.com/the-infinity-saga/ (Kevin Feige Calls the First 22 Movies in the MCU “The Infinity Saga.’), can'be be proof of that? Lado85 (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Because it is from before he revealed that Spider-Man: Far From Home was the end of Phase Three. El Millo (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
And what is problem? Spider-Man: Far From Home is the end of Phase Three an 23th movie. But it isn't part of The Infinity Saga. Lado85 (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
That article you linked says: "Feige dropped the phrase “The Infinity Saga” to refer to the first 22 films, or three phases, of the Marvel Cinematic universe". It uses "first 22 films" and "three phases" as synonyms, referring to the same thing. The only reason Endgame was being referred to as the end of the Infinity Saga was because Far From Home wasn't officially part of Phase Three yet. El Millo (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2019

Add Spiderman: Far From Home to phase 3 as it has been confirmed that it is the final movie in Phase 3, not the first in Phase 4 or the future.

[1]

It also states it on the Spiderman: Far From Home wikipedia page.

[2] Ibamboozle (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/spider-man-far-from-home-endgame-mcu-phase-3
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man:_Far_From_Home#Post-production
It is, but it hasn't been released yet, so it's in the "Future" section. El Millo (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: Per User:Facu-el Millo. NiciVampireHeart 23:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Please fix reference errors

There are many cite errors with big, ugly red error messages at the bottom. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done El Millo (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Phase Four

Just a thought - with Feige stating that the announced slate of upcoming films/TV shows being the 'complete' Phase Four at this time; is there some way that the Disney+ series can be identified as official installments in the Phase Four? This is touched on here. Any thoughts?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I think we should rearrange the articles "List of MCU movies" and "List of MCU television shows" to "List of MCU Marvel Studios properties" and "List of MCU Marvel Television properties". It's seems that the Disney+ shows are being put on equal footing with the films in Phase Four. TdanTce (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it's better to segregate Marvel Studios's shows from that of Marvel Television's. As Marvel Studios's shows will intertwined with movies we can list them as Canon to films. Saichaitanya4496 (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2019.
I disagree, it will only cause more confusion, as all of the shows are in the MCU.--Refuteku (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
To avoid repeating a similar conversation, don't respond here and please see Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Changing article to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe Marvel Studios properties. Equineducklings (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Colors in Television series table

Is there a meaning to the colors used in the table of the MCU tv shows? I cannot find out a key. Thanks! 87.188.57.109 (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe this has been addressed here before. It is standard for Wikipedia articles on TV shows to use colours for each season based on promotional material. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Italics

Should we put The Infinity Saga in italics? El Millo (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Split articles on phases?

Please see and participate in Talk:List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_films#Waking_up_this_thing_again. I want to make sure this is what the consensus of editors want as there are drafts pending approval of this. I have no idea if this will imply an article split or introducing new material. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Status Column

Is the status column really necessary in the films table? Can people not find elsewhere whether a film is filming or in pre-production? Seems like a waste of a column and space if 80% of the column is just "released". Everybody knows that a movie released before the current date is one which been released, and that every movie with a future released date is unreleased. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It's useful when the upcoming movies are in various stages of development (filming, pre-production, post-production, etc.). - adamstom97 (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Television Series

The most television series are not part of the "MCU".This has been confirmed by Kevin Fiege. He just said "The television series are not the part of MCU(Agents of Shield and Agent Carter are the part of MCU as they have been connected to MCU in someways)". He did not specify which television series are and are not in MCU but the news is that the contract of Netflix and Marvel of the characters which Netflix owns(DAREDEVIL,PUNISHER... etc.) is going to expire soon and that they are going remake DAREDEVIL so maybe the Netflix characters are not in MCU which explains the events of Avengers Infinity War not affecting them.

I CAN'T EDIT THIS BECAUSE THIS PAGE IS SEMI-PROTECTED AND I AM NOT APPROVED,BUT MAYBE SOMEONE WHO IS APPROVED WILL READ THIS AND EDIT THE MAIN ARTICLE— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulkit Chopra (talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

They appear to all not be a part of the cinematic universe (not the new MCU ones under Feige), have you the quote?Halbared (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I can add the info, but I'll need a link to the website, or interview, or article for the quote. --Bold Clone 23:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Remember that one thing is the fictional universe and another is the real world franchise, this article is about the later. Cambalachero (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
What‘s the source? I can’t find the quote, only that he emphasized that the Disney+ shows will be more connected than any prior show, but never outright saying that they‘re not “canon“ to the MCU. (Let me be clear, that I still am in favor of somehow grouping the Disney+ shows with the films rather than the other TV shows, because 1. they are an integral Part of Phase Four and directly tie into the films, and 2. they are helmed by Marvel Studios while the other shows are Marvel Television. Essentially, the other shows are expanded universe, while the Disney+ shows seem to be integral chapters). 93.239.110.130 (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding unrelated SONY films

A few users are continuing to try to add Venom and other upcoming Sony films to this page as "related films." They are not part of the MCU and don't belong here any more than any other non-MCU film based on Marvel Comics. There is a claim that Feige said they were related, but I can find no indication of that and no source is being provided. Until someone from Marvel Studios addresses these films and says they are related to the MCU, they do not belong on this page. Rcarter555 (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The claim probably originates from https://www.fandom.com/articles/exclusive-sonys-spider-man-movies-happen-in-the-same-reality-as-the-mcu before the Venom release where producer Amy Pascal (who doesnt work for Marvel or Disney) claimed: "it’s in the same reality". It was part of a longer statement which Kevin Feige called "The perfect answer" according to the source. Feige was present with Pascal and they are coproducing the MCU Spider-Man films so he is unlikely to publicly call her out to her face. But as far as I know, he or anyone else at Marvel has never called Venom related. http://whatculture.com/film/7-ways-venom-could-join-the-mcu says: Prior to Venom's release, Sony did their best to capitalise on the buzz surrounding the Marvel Cinematic Universe by claiming that Venom existed "in the same reality" as it. It was a tenuous statement, and tacit repudiations by Kevin Feige - together with a lack of references to the wider MCU in Venom - seemingly rubbish those comments. I guess that is more accurate. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree, it doesn't belong. Also its a bit of WP:UNDUE to add an entire table for something that is not actually a part of the main topic.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This is definitely related. I will find the video interview of Pascal stating that they are "in the same reality" with Feige stating that it was the perfect answer. Additionally, with the recent Marvel Studios/Sony fallout - Feige had wanted producer credit on the additional SMU films. On top of that Spider-Man 'will not appear in the MCU anymore' but he will continue to appear in movies made by Sony. Variety announced Tom Holland will appear in at least two more Spider-Man movies, and that a Venom/Spider-Man movie is in development at Sony. All these things confirm that they are related.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Once the Spider-Man agreement ends, any future Spiderman films are not part of the MCU, which in turn means that any other Spiderverse films are not part of the MCU. It matters not that the actor is still Tom Holland or that the Spider-Man is technically the same version. This of course can change if Marvel confirms otherwise. --Gonnym (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
No, definitely not. I'm saying that they are related. I'm not saying they would be "set in the MCU". I'm saying that they are indeed related. A section describing this, and the factual evidence that: 1. Feige has agreed that the SMU films are "in the same reality"; 2. Feige has said that a Spider-Man/Venom movie is probable and 'up to Sony'; 3. Feige did uncredited work on Venom and Into the Spider-Verse; 4. Feige wanted producer credits on future SMU films; 5. A Spider-Man/Venom teamup is happening; and 6. Far From Home sequels are in development.... all agree/confirm/solidify that they are at least related. Additionally, Sony has stated they hope to come back to an agreement with Disney/Marvel. Meanwhile neither Disney nor Marvel have made any official statements. It's a business tactic, to 'walk away', remain in silence, and come back for further negotiations.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
There is no confirmation whatsoever that Tom Holland will still be Spider-Man if the movies are only produced by Sony. His contract is up, he would have to renew it. --El Millo (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: Variety states definitively that Holland has two more films in his contract with Sony (ref here); and Tom Holland has now stated himself, on record through Entertainment Weekly, that he will continue the film series with Sony {ref here). Once again, as I stated above/originally... the SMU is definitely at the very least related to the MCU.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Holland starring in Sony-only Spider-Man films is not the same thing as those Sony-only Spider-Man films being set in the SMU -- for all we know a this point, they could keep those films separate from Venom et al. for now. We need to learn more before we can make claims in the articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The article should include references, both planned/failed and real, to the MCU that appeared in other films and vice versa. It was a plan for The Avengers and The Amazing Spider-Man (the first one) to tie in very loosely in a manner that would have implied they were set in the same universe. Banishing from this article all reference to films that aren't "canon" is WP:INUNIVERSE and makes this essentially an advertisement for Marvel Studios to the detriment of rival studios. I am not, of course, advocating the claim that Venom and other related films "take place in the Marvel Cinematic Universe" -- I don't even advocate the claim that Daredevil (TV series) takes place in the MCU (coming as it does from two corporate entities -- Marvel Television and Netflix -- that are rivals of Marvel Studios). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

New Warriors

How should we handle it, since it’s reportedly dead? Remove it? Move it to a section of unproduced/unrealized shows?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I suggest move it.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

MCU & SMU

Today it has DEFINITELY been confirmed that the MCU and SMU is/will be connected to some degree. Kevin Feige statded: "Spider-Man is a powerful icon and hero whose story crosses all ages and audiences around the globe. He also happens to be the only hero with the superpower to cross cinematic universes, so as Sony continues to develop their own Spidey-verse you never know what surprises the future might hold."(ref) --- This adds to the fact that Sony CEO has stated that Tom Holland Spidey will be in the SMU. There should be at least a section labeled 'Related films' listing the SMU releases.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, Deadline has elaborated that the franchises (which both producers have already stated take place 'within the same reality'), will have "'call and answer' between the two franchises as they acknowledge details between the two in what is would loosely be described as a shared detailed universe".(ref)--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that it has been definitely confirmed. "you never know what surprises the future might hold" is ambiguous. It doesn't confirm that if Sony uses Spider-man it will be Tom Holland's Peter Parker Spider-man and not a different Parker or a Miles Morale's version that has no MCU connection. The "within the same reality" was a sentiment from Sony that Marvel never reciprocated. Also the Deadline article doesn't say that there will be a "call and answer", only that that could be, with details still being early. -Vrobowp (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Vrobowp: Feige stated "Spider-Man is a power icon" (not icons)..."and hero" (not heroes)...."He also happens to be the only hero with the superpower to cross cinematic universes" (not 'They also...only heros'). There's no grey area there. Secondly Sony has said from the beginning that the SMU is an extension of Tom Holland's Spider-Man. Lastly, Sony CEO clearly stated that the Tom Holland Spider-Man will become more integrated into the SMU. "Early" as you said, since reports have stated those angles of the negotiations are ongoing - but it's clear as to what is going on here. Spidey originally left MCU, because Feige wanted credit on the SMU movies that he will assist with (since he received no credit/pay for the first releases). And again - Feige was there when Pascal said that they are 'in the same reality' - to which Feige stated it was "perfectly" stated.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I also agree that we need to wait until this all shakes out and we see what it will actually look like. News reports vary at this time and we’ll find out soon enough how (or IF) The Sony films are going to be connected to the MCU. There’s no disadvantage to waiting for clarity. Rcarter555 (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Bugle as new Digital Series?

Youtube channel The Daily Bugle has been posting a series of in-universe videos (mostly attacking Spider-Man): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGfq7EcxdrDN9hSo-iOaSxg -- would this be considered a new Digital Series (a la WHiH Newsfront)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Just a heads up that this exists. Me and @BD2412: are already discussing on how we can improve it. I am trying to expand with already used sources for verification at the time being but that's the hard part because the way the sources are scattered. Jhenderson 777 05:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

WandaVision moved to 2020

Reportedly moved from early 2021 to late 2020. Source: CB

Falcon & Winter Soldier is listed as late 2020, yet the given source (THR) says fall 2020. Distinction due to WandaVision nessecary now.

--95.91.219.85 (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Blade being listed in Unannounced Phase section

Noticed that the Blade movie featuring Mahershala Ali is not mentioned anywhere on the page despite being confirmed to be set in the MCU and supposedly is not apart of Phase 4. Figured it should be listed with Black Panther 2 under the Unannounced Phase section. NoLandBeyonde (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no release date, so it should not be in the table. The full list of films in development that aren't dated and potential films can be found on the list of films article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Disagree. All announced films should be listed. If your suggestion is to be the standard then all TV Shows without a release date need to be removed as well.98.194.100.54 (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Blade along with other films like Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, a Captain Marvel sequel, and Fantastic Four have all been announced to be in development by Kevin Feige, yes, but none of them have release dates set and there is no enough info about them to warrant inclusion in the section. The only reason why Black Panther II is included there is because it has a release date and writer/director, which are the qualifications for such an inclusion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Like the other person said, why do the movies have to meet those qualifications when the TV shows don't? By that logic, Moon Knight and She-Hulk (and arguably all of the Disney+ series for that matter since none of them have definite release dates) shouldn't be listed. But to be clear, I would completely disagree with removing them - everything announced, both movies and TV shows, should definitely be mentioned somewhere, whether in the tables or not. Alphius (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Blade doesn't have anyone attached to write or direct, nor does it have a release date. All it has is a logo. That isn't enough to add it to the table. As for the Disney+ shows, all of them but She-Hulk and Moon Knight have showrunners announced and logos, but the difference is they have a confirmed network (Disney+) and Blade hasn't been officially announced for any phase. So, by these standards, Blade should not be added to the "Unannounced Phase" section. If we were to do that, all other Future films would need to be added, and that requires a larger consensus and is for a different discussion. I'd recommend we take the wait patient approach until Blade is announced for a phase before we blindly add it to the table. Blade and other Future films are still mentioned on the List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films page, so, it is still mentioned there. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I still think maybe just a sentence could be added to the "Films" subsection here, but I completely forgot about the separate list page. Alphius (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Ant Man 3 is Unannounced phase as well Bobob100 (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

As with Blade, it has no official release date. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Old jokes

@Rcarter555:, @Merry medievalist:, regarding calling Gunn's social media comments "old jokes" instead of quoting the source directly. Why do you think it is POV? The comments were from like 2012 and they resurfaced in 2018 –hence, old– and everyone acknowledged that, as inappropriate as some people might have found them, they were not to be taken seriously –hence, jokes–. @Favre1fan93: might wanna participate as well. El Millo (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll follow, but at this time, I agree with your summary Facu-el Millo. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Because by classifying them as “old jokes”, you are introducing a potentially biased point of view that is not supported by the reference. Why would you NOT “quote the source directly” if that is an option? Doesn’t that keep any bias out of the comment? Rcarter555 (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
"resurfaced old tweets Thursday in which the filmmaker joked about controversial topics such as pedophilia and rape" This is the second line in the body of the THR article. El Millo (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The expression “old jokes” minimizes and misrepresents the nature of what he said, putting it into the class of: “Doctor, it hurts when I do this. Then don't do that.” Merry medievalist (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Would it be better if we added that they were "controversial old jokes", or something like that? El Millo (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
It sounds to me that there is bias from the other direction here. "Old jokes" is objectively accurate. Another thing to point out is that this is just a summary of the situation since it is discussed in more detail in more appropriate places already. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Captain Marvel 2 Rumoured for 2022

As Captain Marvel 2 Rumoured for 2022 could it be put in the unannounced phase as a release date of ‘Rumoured for 2022’ Bobob100 (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It is a rumor, so not official. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn’t Ant-man 3, Blade and Guardians Of The Galaxy Volume 3 be in unannounced phase

Ant-man 3, Blade and Guardians Of The Galaxy Volume 3 Are ALL confirmed but NOT on unannounced phase, Could someone please reply to this discussion. Bobob100 (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

They won't be added to the table until we have a release date to confirm that they are on Marvel's schedule. Until then, anything could happen during the development process. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Even though a release date hasn’t been confirmed for any of the three you can just put TBA (To Be Announced) and is they are cancelled you can remove them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobob100 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I personally believe that any confirmed film should be listed in unannounced phase.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobob100 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I rather agree. A release date shouldn't be required, as long as the existence of the film is confirmed by an official source. Conversely, the Inhumans movie was officially announced with a release date and then didn't happen; it was just deleted from the table at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 19:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Classifcations

I'm just curious, seeing a the whole Television section has totally changed - where are we getting the classifications of "Marvel Heroes", "Marvel Knights", and "young adult series" from??.. this is surely fan-page territory if it is not officially from Marvel Studios....--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I had my own comments about that month ago, but I was completely ignored. Mike210381 (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The "Marvel Heroes" and "Marvel Knights" headings in the table should definitely be changed back to "ABC series" and "Netflix series" as agreed upon here. They were boldly changed after the network column was added to the table in order to avoid repetition, but I think in this instance it's best to have a bit of repetition instead of using these two completely unknown titles that know one has ever heard of and that we don't even use as the classification of the series anywhere else on Wikipedia. - Brojam (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Absolutely agree. Someone has been reinserting these categories and I have reverted. One off handed comment that “we sometimes call it around here” is hardly definitive enough for us to establish these categories. Rcarter555 (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • This amounts to WP:INUNIVERSE classification. Wikipedia goes by WP:COMMONNAME and classifications that make sense to the broad audience. One article about an executive and their inuniverse classification doesn't suddenly change COMMONNAME and result to confusing general readers. These are mostly terms that were hardly mentioned in relation to the shows. Even Defenders would have made more sense to the readers than "Marvel Knights" since that was the Netflix team up. Either way, a consensus would need to be reached first before changing to unknown classifications. Starforce13 16:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
"Marvel Heroes", "Marvel Knights", "Marvel YA series" and "Adventures into Fear" are the currently accepted consensus to use. @Rcarter555 and Starforce: if you disagree, please restart the conversation at the discussion on Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series so the discussion can be centralized and not split between both there and here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Nope, scratch all of that. This actually should happen here because it is only for the table here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

So I'll start this off. I would be fine changing the ABC and Netflix headings back to "ABC series" and "Netflix series". However, the "Young adult series" and "Adventure into Fear" should stay and not be changed to "Other"/"In development" because that does not accurately describe them, nor tell readers where they will be going once they click the link. Additionally, Helstrom won't move into the section with C&D and Runaways once it premieres. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, per Loeb's quote here, "Adventures into Fear" was very much not an internal label. I agree that "Marvel Heroes" and "Marvel Knights" moreso were internal. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Changing "Marvel Heroes" and "Marvel Knights" back is fine, but keeping the rest how they does properly identify them per the groupings Marvel had mentioned. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. - Brojam (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think one short remark in one interview is enough to establish this is "official", it sure isn't the common name (but I'm sure no one is arguing that). Giving the fact he was removed from any decision making and had the other series canceled, I very much doubt "Adventures into Fear" will be the name. I think it's pure speculation on our part to call it that. I'm more ok-ish with "Young adult series" as that is more a descriptive term than an official one, but would also prefer it gone as well. --Gonnym (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
@Gonnym: well the hard part about it is, Helstrom is very likely going to be the only series that releases under that proposed banner. Until Marvel Studios absorbed everything, the Hulu series were going to be the spot for this banner of shows, including the planned Ghost Rider series and other spin-offs potentially. Then everything got canned. So yes, Adventures into Fear is now a banner of one. And as I said in my first comment, I'm against using "Other" or the like because it would not label the link to Adventure into Fear (planned franchise) properly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I understand. I don't think however that there is any merit to that article. Almost the whole article is about Helstrom with a small section about the planned Ghost Rider show (which won't get any bigger). That's is way overkill. Everything Helstorm related should be moved back to that article and Ghost Rider should be moved out to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series. --Gonnym (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that is a fair assessment of the article, it is almost half-and-half Helstrom and Ghost Rider information with a few points about other planned series and room to grow if we get any more details (quite possible since Helstrom hasn't even come out yet and it is likely that there will be movement on the Ghost Rider property at some point). I am also strongly against including a large detailed section at the list of MCU TV shows that is about one series that was never actually made when there are not even any details about series that were made. It would give a huge amount of undue weight to Ghost Rider if we put it there. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
It's a pretty fair assessment. Everything that can be said about Ghost rider is either duplicated later, or relevant to the only series that actually got made. Per "Room to grow" that is WP:CRYSTAL. When and if more detail will be added then a split should happen. We shouldn't spin-out articles just because. Also, there is no "undue weight" here for Ghost Rider. It's a small section. It's fine. --Gonnym (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay well you just dismissed everything I said and obviously don't understand what undue weight means. It's not fine to try merge that article into the main TV list, and there is no reason that we need to. There was also a decent discussion about doing it beforehand so there is consensus behind the current split. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with "YA series" for Cloak & Dagger and Runaways because they belong together despite network difference... and I've always wanted a classification that puts together. But Netflix and ABC series should remain as such because that's how people identify them. And technically all Marvel shows are about heroes. So, it doesn't make sense to casual readers where ABC ones are the only ones classified as "Marvel Heroes." And I don't believe anyone ever referred to the Netflix ones as "Knights." I don't have a strong opinion for "Adventure into Fear". Starforce13 20:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Starforce13: Yeah, those are the adjustments I'm proposing, using YA and going back to ABC and Netflix. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed "Marvel Heroes" and "Marvel Knights". Once thing in doing so, which I seem to remember now in the initial use of "Heroes"/"Knights", the network column is repetitive for both of these sections, and I don't think there is a solution to not include them without separating out the ABC and Netflix series from the YA and Adventure into Fear. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems like these 'classifications' come from Jeph Loeb, who isn't even in charge of the Marvel television output anymore (since it was rolled into Marvel Studios jurisdiction). Additionally, dividing the table into 'Young adult' vs... 'Adult'(?) television series doesn't seem like the best solution either. It almost seems like placing them into groups of networks, made the most sense.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

What? All of these WERE Marvel Television series, so how THEY grouped them is the most accurate at this time. And "Young adult" is a genre and the best classification of those two related series since they had connections between them despite airing on different networks (hence this classification and not one by network). Additionally, Helstrom and the other planned series on Hulu were not going to be as tied in with the YA series, again, another reason for its separation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2020

There are multiple movies that have been confirmed by Marvel Studios that need to be on here. Below is what is confirmed. Please have this changed.

MOVIES

Black Widow (May 2020) The Eternals (November 2020) Shang-Chi and the Legend of 10 Rings (February 2021) Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (May 2021) Spider-Man 3 (July 2021) Thor 4: Love and Thunder (November 2021) Black Panther 2 (May 2022) Guardians of the Galaxy 3 (Mid 2022) Ant-Man and the Wasp 2 (Mid 2022) Captain Marvel 2 (Late 2022) Blade (Early 2023) Fantastic Four (Late 2023) X-Men (Late 2023 Deadpool (Early 2024) Avengers 5 (Mid 2024)

SHOWS The Falcon and the Winter Soldier (Late 2020) WandaVision (Late 2020) Loki (Early 2021) What If (Mid 2021) She-Hulk (Late 2021 Hawkeye (Late 2021) Ms. Marvel (Early 2022) Moon Knight (Late 2022) ? ? Adam0059 (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Remove sections which duplicate Outline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and replace with a link to said article

Should I be bold? I thought I shouldn't because there would be objections, thus, this. Xaxafrad (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

To be specific, I'm referring to sections 2-8 (Feature films - Music). Xaxafrad (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Those have been duplicated to the outline from here. They definitely should be here as the idea of this article is to be about the MCU as a whole. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of What If...? stars from the films

As I was editing the page and fixing some ref errors, I noticed that several of the cast members that star in the films who have Disney+ series are listed in the Recurring cast and characters section (i.e. Tom Hiddleston, Jeremy Renner, etc.), although Chris Hemsworth and Natalie Portman I noticed are absent from this listing despite their appearances in What If...? via voice roles. I was wondering if these should be included in the table and if we should have a voice role indicator for What If...?, although the latter might not be necessary as some film stars have live-action series whereas other actors who appeared in the films and are in What If...? (e.g. Paul Rudd, Djimon Hounsou, etc.) are not currently listed but could be with this listing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe What if... has been excluded from the table because it is not canon to the MCU. Much in the way the Guardians actors reprised roles in Mission Breakout or Rudd reprising the role in A Mini Marvel, we don't make columns or mentions of those in the table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
That did occur to me after I proposed this. I believe that, since What If...? is included as part of Phase Four and we list it in the cast and characters section on the Phase Four page, that we might want to discuss its inclusion here given the official recognition it has been given alongside the rest of the Phase Four content.
I was thinking that with the voice role indicator for the film actors in the series, we could include that they appear "in the non-canon What If...? series" or "the alternate reality/depiction presented in What If...?", or something along those lines so we could acknowledge the MCU film actors are set to appear in the series. Given it is animated and set in an alternate portrayal of the universe, it is undoubtedly non-canon to the main timeline but is rather part of the franchise and Phase Four roster, so I think it's notable to include the actors in it here via the indicator to address the uniqueness of it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
If it's part of Phase Four, then we should include it. Either that or remove it from Phase Four's Recurring cast and characters section as well. El Millo (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
If we added here, I'd be ok with a new column called "Other/Outside media" and then efn tags next to each actor for what it was. And we could bring in Mission Breakout and A Mini Marvel. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
That works. I hadn't even considered those beforehand. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
What If is a TV series and officially part of Phase Four. Adding a V for a voice-only role should suffice for that, in case the actor doesn't appear in any other TV series. We could add an "Other media" for the theme parks and stuff. El Millo (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes What If is a TV series, but it's content is still outside the canon of the MCU like the theme parks (at least based on everything we know today). That's why I think if we include it, it should go in this new column. As it is on the Phase Four article is ok because that is covering just the Phase and it is a part of it as you mention. But looking at it here, I think we have to make that distinction that it is non-canon. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps a non-canon ref tagNC, next to the voice-only one. I just think it should still be under TV series. El Millo (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with using both the V and NC tags for the characters in What If...? while I also think including them in the Other/Outside media header that Favre suggested could suffice as it allows us to acknowledge those in What If that are in other series and those that aren't while keeping them separate. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm for "Other Media" because What If...? is not truly part of MCU. It's also going to have a lot of characters and different realities and alternatives which will make a lot of mess to the structure we have. So, we should remove it from recurring characters and other listings and instead add it to a separate section. — Starforce13 19:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Trailblazer101 would you want the What if actors in the "Other media" column as I suggested, or included in the "Television series" column with the NC tag that Facu-el Millo suggested? I wasn't clear on your last comment how you felt. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking we include them in the "Other media" column with the NC tag being used as a way to identify their non-canon status for What If, which could than be extended for characters in other media such as Mission Breakout and A Mini Marvel. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
The NC tag I suggested is in order to include them in the TV series column. All of the potential Other media we would include (e.g. the theme park rides) would be non-canon by definition. El Millo (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Ah true. Then in that case, I'm all for going with the Other media section in the table. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that's the route we should go, and should What if be more connected than we have all been led to believe once it comes out, then we could put those actors into the Television series column as El Millo suggested. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added the "Outside media" bar to the cast and characters section with actors from What If, Avengers: Damage Control, Mission Breakout, and attractions that Paul Bettany and Titus Welliver returned as J.A.R.V.I.S. and Felix Blake for. I realized that the recurring characters from A Mini Marvel and the Team Thor films are already listed here via What If so I just included them with that. I probably didn't get all of the outside media that could be listed there with characters, so if there's any others, feel free to add them in. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps a note next to "Outside media" would help define what "Outside media" includes. Does it include video games? Theme park rides? Animated TV series? Shorts? El Millo (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Good call. Perhaps this could suffice: "Characters in this section are those that appear in or have their voices present in non-canon material for animated television series, short films, theme park attractions, and video games." Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Wait, so we do include video games? That was the one item I listed I thought we weren't gonna include. El Millo (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
The way I see it, Avengers: Damage Control is not an actual game like the rest as it was a limited time virtual reality event which had MCU actors in it and was produced by Marvel Studios rather than a gaming company, and is particularly designed to fit within the continuity but is not. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that would be closer to a ride than anything else. Let's not include video games to avoid confusion. El Millo (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds to be a better distinction. I'll go ahead and add the note there now. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
All this sounds fine to me! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I think incorrect use the term "Non-canon" to What If...?. The series will explore parallel realities/universes in the MCU. Similarly, Loki will also not set in the "main MCU". And the fact they announced What If...? as Phase 4. For me, it should be noted in the "television series" column instead of "outside media".YgorD3 (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marvel_Cinematic_Universe/Archive_11&oldid=993360321"